The preliminary $854 million budget included a General Fund deficit, but the final proposal addressed the deficit through a $2.3 million property tax increase, a $2 million increase in the electric utility transfer, and a $3 million one-time transfer from the Capital Improvement program.

This approach was not popular with some City Commissioners.

City Commissioner and Mayoral candidate Andrew Gillum asked if there was “an alternative budget.” He repeatedly voiced concerns about the additional $2 million that was added to the current $23.9 million electric utility transfer.

“I am a little surprised by the lack of justification for the electric utility transfer. This proposal did not go through the Financial Viability Committee”, said Gillum.

City Commissioner Gil Ziffer said “if we can do anything at all to avoid increasing the electric utility fund transfer I would like to see it.”

City Commissioner Maddox, who voiced concern about the property tax increase, seemed to have less problem with using funds form the electric utility reserve.

Using input from the budget workshops, which were attended by approximately 100 citizens, staff told city commissioners that the feedback from the community was to maintain or increase the level of services. Mayor Marks concurred, “we need to identify service impacts of changing the proposed budget. We are doing a good job.”

City Manager Thompson told city commissioners that service levels are being degraded in several departments due to the lack of funding. With regards to law enforcement, City Manager Anita Favors Thompson offered that “we are so far under required staff levels. Our staffing does not provide adequate back up.”

To support this point, staff handed out a document that indicated spending on city operations over the last five years has decreased from $730 million in 2008 to $685 million in 2013.

Reviewing the document, City Commissioner Nancy Miller said, “we can only be in a holding pattern so long.”

Tallahassee Reports is reviewing the document handed out by city staff and will have a report  on the spending analysis.

The next budget workshop is July 1, 2013.

City Commissioner Scott Maddox, visibly frustrated, said, “it is hard for me to imagine a more confusing process. This is absurd and ridiculous! There have been six hours of meetings and we have not voted on one priority. This is ridiculous!”

County Commissioner Dozier added she was “embarassed by the workshop process.”

It was Maddox and Dozier who had originally asked that the CRA staff to have a workshop so that members could more clearly define the role of the CRA. Maddox had voiced concerns over spending CRA money on projects that stretched the bounds of what a CRA is designed to do.

County Commissioner Dozier wanted a process in place to guide spending. She said “we need policies so we can vet future projects.”

The problem began when CRA Board members showed up at the June 5th workshop to see that the meeting was designed to identify CRA priorities in Frenchtown and not to talk about the overall mission of the CRA. Tallahassee Reports published a story on that meeting here.

Today’s meeting was a continuation of the workshop. There seemed to be tension between those who wanted a high level discussion on CRA policies and others that wanted to focus on the priorities for Frenchtown.

City Commissioner Andrew Gillum indicated that Frenchtown should be the new priority because of the recent focus on Downtown and Gaines street projects. And Mayor Marks agreed, saying the “focus should be on Frenchtown and the Southside.”

A good portion of the meeting was spent by County Commissioner Dozier trying to fashion a motion that would allow the Board to address policy goals before specific projects. Dozier persevered through the process and reworded her motion at least four times to incorporate comments of her colleagues. The motion finally passed and then the Board voted to adopt five policy goals for the CRA: Economic Development, Open Spaces and Landscaping, Neighborhood Safety, Infrastructure Improvement, and Healthy Community.

The last policy goal, Healthy Community, passed after City Commissioner Scott Maddox clarified with the sponsor of the motion, City Commissioner Andrew Gillum, that this goal did not include the delivery of health care services, but rather, was focused on promoting healthy lifestyles.

The next step in the process will be to identify specific Frenchtown projects that fit within the defined policy goals. However, City Commissioner Ziffer made it clear that the first step needs to be for the CRA to help the homeless shelter move. And in this case, help means money.

The next CRA meeting is scheduled for July 10th.

The CRA Board voted to spend almost $200,000 on leasing parking spaces near the Gaines Street corridor and a consultant that will offer a strategic assessment of downtown Tallahassee.

The CRA staff said that the parking places would help “support retail development” in the area. Mayor Marks asked staff to look into “parking meters with no poles.”

The main part of the meeting was devoted to a presentation from representatives of the Florida Center for Performing Arts Center and Education. The presenters sought support of Board members for a new Performing Arts Center to be located downtown. The presentation focused on the quality of life and economic benefits of the project. Bob Inzer, an advocate for the project, stated that we “should not expect the PAC to be financially self supporting.”

After the presentation, Board members weighed in.

When told that the project will result in over 300 sustainable jobs, Commissioner Scott Maddox responded, “this is not plausible to me.”

Commissioner Mary Ann Lindley: “I really like this project and believe the community will eventually support it.”

Mayor John Marks: ” I support this project. I would support something grander. I want a water fountain in the design.”

Commissioner Andrew Gillum:  “We are rolling a boulder up a hill. I fully endorse the complete vetting of this project.”

Commissioner Gill Ziffer: “I really want to believe in this project . The projections are a crapshoot. I would like to know what our citizens think.”

Commissioner Kristen Dozier:”My concern is on operating expenses.”

Commissioner Bill Proctor: “We need a performing central water and sewer system throughout the southside before we contemplate a performing arts center downtown.”

The next stop for the PAC is the Leon County Sales Tax Committee on Friday.

”

A few months ago, on March 9, the City Commission passed a local business certification program that gave businesses in Leon County a pricing advantage over businesses bidding on projects that were located outside of Leon County. For example, a business in Leon County could bid 10% higher than a company located in Gadsden county and still win the job. The idea was to reward local businesses and help stimulate the local economy.

However, on June 22 Commissioner Gillum sponsored an agenda item that expanded the local business preference to all commercial natural gas customers of the city of Tallahassee that are located outside of Leon County. City attorney Jim English stated there were 5 such customers. Commissioner Gillum said the “case has been made” that the commercial natural gas customers should have a local preference.

The City Commission passed the item 5-0, but after the vote Commissioner Gillum informed the Commissioners that one of the customers that would get the benefit of this new preference was a party to a procurement item currently under consideration.

“Commissioners, I failed to mention that this was added to the agenda today because one of the businesses affected by this is currently bidding on a project before the city,” said Commissioner Gillum. The business customer Gillum was referring to was Peavey and Sons.

Peavey and Sons is one of three contractors locked in a “procurement battle” for the city’s asphalt and milling contract. Two of the companies are local and one – the previous winner of the three year contract, Peavey and Sons – is located in Gadsden County and did not qualify for the local business preference before the inclusion of large natural gas customers.

During the discussion among the commissioners, Marc Mitchell, owner of one of the local companies bidding against Peavey and Sons was in the audience waving his hands trying to speak on the item, but was informed he would have to wait for unagendaed speakers.

Mr. Mitchell waited patiently and then forcefully, but respectfully, simply asked why was the “commission so eager to help out a company that is not paying Leon county taxes or city of Tallahassee taxes.”

Those who believe that you cannot have an impact with three minutes before the city commission should watch the video of Mr. Mitchell’s presentation and the conversation among the commissioners that followed.

First, Mayor Marks said that the handling of this agenda item “violated one of my cardinal rules by not giving this a 24 hour look” and then added “I wonder if this move encourages commercial gas customers to move to Gadsden County?”

Commissioner Gillum then apologized for bringing the item straight from the financial viability committee on the same day it was to be voted on and admitted, upon reflection, the issue was making him “uncomfortable.”

The discussion ended with Mayor Marks saying “we are going to take a closer look at this.”

The handling of this issue brings up a number of questions about transparency. First, Commissioner Gillum stated that the “case has been made” with regards to extending the preference to commercial gas customers outside Leon county. Who made this case on behalf of Peavey and Sons? Was that person a registered lobbyist? Tallahassee Reports requested a list of registered lobbyists and found there was no one registered on behalf of Peavey and Sons.

Also, was the “case made” in a public meeting or in writing?  The city of Tallahassee just passed a cone of silence provision with regards to procurement activities that states “any form of communication, except for written correspondence, shall be prohibited regarding a particular request for proposal, request for qualification, bid, or any other competitive solicitation between any person or person’s representative seeking an award from such competitive solicitation; and any city commissioner or commissioner’s staff, or any city employee authorized to act on behalf of the commission to award a particular contract.”

And finally, this incident provides powerful evidence for those who want the city commission to get input from citizens before they vote on an issue, instead of being relegated to unagendaed speakers. Just imagine if Mr. Mitchell would have been able to address Commissioner Gillum’s proposal before the commission voted. It is not a stretch to assume the outcome would have been different, and if not, at least the commissioners would have made a more informed decision.

Tallahassee Reports is seeking more information with regards to this issue.

Mr. Michael Wing, an affable, pleasant, soft-spoken man is the Executive Director, who also serves as staff of the Architectural Review Board which will “approve” your house and plan.  He also sits on the City’s Historic Property Grant and Loan Finance Committee, along with a few honorary City Department heads and local bankers.  Mr. Wing is readily available and eager to talk historic preservation, especially if you have an old house and want help to save it for the future.

So.  Here is someone on the City’s Historic Property Grant & Loan Finance Committee, and this person is the only one present who knows details on applicants’ historic properties–in a professional, historic sense.  The grant committee is going to pretty much defer to him on each property they review for a grant or loan.  That’s why he is there.

Mr. Wing has been on this grant committee since 2005. He has been instrumental in obtaining grants and loans of amazingly large sums for several persons whom he has subsequently recruited for membership on the Architectural Review Board.

Naturally, these recruited members will look to him for guidance and are likely to cast their vote as he recommends on matters coming before the Architectural Review Board.  One can presume they really appreciate those thousands of dollars.  Who wouldn’t?  And it’s not as if he’s a fringe element and the votes would be suspicious–he’s the historic preservation officer.  They just go along.   One of the current members got $100,000 prior to joining the ARB.  Another member received three loans and three grants!

Because of the code-defined makeup of the Architectural Review Board, which requires four members to have historic properties (which are eligible for grants or additional grants), this representative of the City’s Historic Grant and Loan Finance Committee is also looked to for direction on voting from these additional property-owner members.  They know that someday they may wish to apply for a City renovation grant and this person will potentially be making the key presentation to the full grant committee.  They, too are likely to follow his lead when casting their votes.  Why not?  He is the Executive Director who has written the application they are voting on, and has prepared the Staff Recommendation  to accept it.

Add in another interesting fact:  The membership of the Architectural Review Board has gradually changed, and representatives of the Tallahassee Trust for Historic Preservation (TTHP) have increased their presence on the ARB from the code-specified two members to four members.  This is a code violation, but fully supported by the City’s staff Attorney, Linda Hudson.  Everyone downtown looks the other way:  It must be “ok”, since she said so.  Personally, I think “two” means “two”, and that’s not very ambiguous.  In fact, it’s very exact and specific, and for the City Attorney to let one of his staff say that “two” means “four or more” would implicate him very seriously in this financial and historic property control game.

For clarification, this key member of the City’s Historic Property Grant & Loan Committee, Michael Wing, works for the TTHP, as a paid employee with the title Executive Director.  They have placed him in charge of the Architectural Review Board, as well as placing him on the City Historical Property Grant Committee.  These roles he fills are defined as part of his job in the contract provided by the City Attorney’s office.  There is nothing coincidental or odd here.  He is supposed to have those two jobs.  He is fulfilling the duties for which he is paid.

———–

So we have an Architectural Review Board which, today, has five members who have either received City grants of thousands of dollars or who may anticipate receiving City grants of thousands of dollars, all guided by Michael Wing of the TTHP.  One of these five members works in the Planning Department, the next step for the application….

There are four members of the Architectural Review Board who are also on the Board of Directors of the Tallahassee Trust for Historic Preservation.  One of these, in fact, is acting as the Chairman of the Architectural Review Board.  This contractor has taken control of a public citizen’s advisory board in violation of both Leon County’s and Tallahassee’s statutes, but with the written approval of the City Attorney’s staff, regardless of the fact that it violates the codes.

The Membership List of the Tallahassee Trust for Historic Preservation, being mentioned in the code as a condition of their contract representation on the Architectural Review Board, should be public information.  A FL Chapter 119 Public Records request to the City of Tallahassee was refused outright by City staff attorney Linda Hudson.  She said she didn’t have the information and she was not going to ask for it.  Thus, a possibility exists that there are additional, undisclosed members of the TTHP on the ARB.  Ms. Hudson works directly under the supervision of James English, our City Attorney appointed by the City Commission.

————

A the TTHP website, Taltrust.org, there is a link to various historic preservation-oriented businesses: a seemingly innocuous, useful source of information.  Four of those businesses are historic property design professionals who serve on the Architectural Review Board: two are current members, and two served in the very recent past.

In seeking official historic preservation status as the first step enroute to a substantial grant of free money from the City, who would not consult one of these design professionals?  You have to appear before the board with a plan, anyway.  At any time currently, or in the recent few years, access to a deciding member of the Architectural Review Board has been provided through their advertisement on the Taltrust.org website.  Pay your fee.  Get your plan.  Get your influence.  Go for the vote.

Add all of this up, and except for the multiple members of the TTHP which provide an illegal majority, you will have a “fix” in for historic designation and a City grant, which is technically legal and part of the code or contract with TTHP.  This is a system written and designed by the City Attorney’s office.  And, ethically, on paper, it’s crooked as hell.  We can check voting records, but we cannot know what is in the hearts and minds of people.  Fortunately, ethics laws follow the “appearance” of impropriety.  But that pesky, illegal membership situation…..

There is a genuine question as to the fairness of the distribution of the City’s historic preservation grants.  The structure of the system doesn’t look good.

What is really going on?  This is a difficult question.  I think, as a community with good intentions, we have set up a system intended for good people to serve who have experience in the procedures for formal historic preservation.  The guidance and knowledge for what really “fits” a particular style of building of a particular era is pretty difficult to find, without experienced people volunteering their time and a trustworthy organization keeping the pool of knowledge and talent on tap, so to speak.  Without the formal approach, true preservation can be haphazard and irreversable errors can be unintentionally made to fine buildings.

I sincerely believe no one has been working the system for personal gain.  But, the system appears to be worked and abused for other reasons. It may be for greater say in the hands of fewer people over property they have no real right to control.  Private property is, indeed, private.  It may be zealotry for preservation at any cost.  The setup of the Architectural Review Board needs to be reviewed.  The setup of the contract with Tallahassee Trust for Historic Preservation needs to be reviewed.  The whole system needs to be looked at closely.  The entire ordinance structure governing the city’s historic preservation process lacks a certain, fresh, open, unambiguous fairness.  One tiny part of the ordinance, for neighborhoods, is now being studied by a citizen group.  This effort will be looked at more closely in the second part of this series.

Meanwhile, we need to understand that compromises in ethical structures can leave honorable people vulnerable to public questions of intent.  They may be no less honorable for the questions.  However, the questions are also valid.  It’s how we open a community dialog to improve ourselves and our future.  It’s time for that dialog in Tallahassee on the subject of Historic Preservation.

———–

A recent appearance of mine before the City Commission on this issue did elicit some genuine interest from Mayor John Marks.  He arranged a very productive meeting with his Chief of Staff, Rick Minor to begin looking into this issue.  Mr. Minor brought the newInterim City Treasurer-Clerk, Jim Cooke, onboard, and I was able to clarify for them where the abuses are occuring, as well as answer many questions which will guide them a step further toward solutions.  I hope for the best, and heartily thank Mayor Marks for his personal involvement, as well as Mr. Jim Cooke for his sincere interest.

This article is part-one of a two-part series.  Thank you to Steve Stewart of Tallahassee Reports’ Website for publishing it.  A copy will be posted on HistoricLafayettePark.com. The second article is being researched and should be available soon.

Preview of part-two:
We’ve seen here how a possibly ethically-compromised Architectural Review Board, aided by the City Attorney’s office, and a no-bid, sole-source contractor for historic preservation services can grease the wheels of bureaucracy to obtain grants for those who want to participate in Historic Preservation Overlay (HPO) rezoning.  There is a flip-side to this situation:  What happens when this same system is used to take someone’s property rights when they had no intention of participating?  Those wheels are still greased and the City Attorney’s office will not be on your side!  Stay tuned for this exciting second article.

Further information on our historic preservation system in Tallahassee, as well as specific substantiating documents for this article can be found at HistoricLafayettePark.com.

Your comments will be helpful in exposing where our money goes.  Please add your voice.

Mark S. Daniel
Editor & Publisher, HistoricLafayettePark.com
Tallymark@Rocketmail.com

Official Document Scans:

• [download id=”4″]
• [download id=”1″]
  
• [download id=”2″]
  
• [download id=”3″]
  
• [download id=”5″]
  
• [download id=”6″]
  
• [download id=”7″]
  

The federal grant won by the city of Tallahassee was part of a program administered by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) with the goal to expand access to broadband services in the United States. The federal government provided $4.7 billion to NTIA to establish the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) to increase broadband access and adoption; provide broadband training and support to schools, libraries, healthcare providers, and other organizations; improve broadband access to public safety agencies; and stimulate demand for broadband.

The federal grant was secured by an application written and submitted to the NTIA by Carrie Blanchard, on March 13, 2010. At the time, she was the chief aide to Mayor John Marks.

After talking to sources, it has been determined that several documents have been turned over to the FBI because of concern about the relationship between Mayor John Marks and the vendors included in the grant application.

Sources indicate there are primarily three concerns. First it appears that the two vendors, Alliance Digital for Equality and Go Beyond were included in the grant application, which originated in the Mayor’s office, without a competitive bid process.

Second, Mayor Marks serves on the board of Alliance Digital for Equality and has received approximately $66,000 in compensation since 2007. And finally, Mayor Marks, on September 15, 2010, voted to partner with ADE without abstaining or disclosing his financial relationship with ADE.

On September 16, 2010 John Marks accepted the federal grant by signing a US Department of Commerce document that obligated the signer to follow specific federal rules. The federal rules the Mayor agreed to follow address how vendors are selected and the existence of potential conflicts of interest.

The federal rules state “all procurement transactions will be conducted in a manner providing full and open competition.” Sources indicate that no open competition existed for the awards given to Go Beyond and ADE. A search of Commission records revealed no evidence of a request for proposal addressing the program.

With regard to conflicts of interest, federal rules state the following:

“No employee, officer or agent of the grantee…shall participate in selection, or in the award or administration of a contract supported by Federal funds if a conflict of interest, real or apparent, would be involved. Such a conflict would arise when the employee, officer or agent….has a financial or other interest in the firm selected for award.”

Federal tax filings list Mayor Marks as an Alliance for Digital Equality board member and show that Mayor Marks was paid $19,000 in 2007, $24,000 in 2008 and $23,000 in 2009. The Alliance for Digital Equality website currently lists Mayor Marks as a member of their board of advisors. Sources tell Tallahassee Reports that Mayor Marks did receive payments from ADE in 2010.

Tallahassee Reports will post supporting documents related to this story on March 29^th at 4:00 pm.

UPDATE: 1:20PM EST
More on this can be seen in a video posted on WCTV. Watch it here.

At the upcoming City of Tallahassee Commission meeting, there will be a public hearing for ordinance No. 11-O-03AA – Providing for Registration of Lobbyists. The agenda item states that “Mayor Marks has requested that the City Commission consider the adoption of a City ordinance providing for lobbyist registration in the same manner that the Leon County ordinance provides.”

However, the last two lines of the agenda item analysis states: “The Leon County ordinance, when passed, was written to include a communications prohibition regarding county procurement activities. This prohibition has not been included within the proposed ordinance in that it applies to individuals involved in self-representation and is not limited to regulations regarding lobbyists.”

The COT staff analysis indicates that this provision was taken out because it applies to individuals as well as lobbyists. Tallahassee Reports contacted county officials and asked about this issue. County officials said that the language applies to individual citizens and lobbyists because we do not want individuals or lobbyists talking to decision makers during the “cone of silence” without a written record. “Cone of silence” refers to a specific period of time when critical decisions are being made about contracts and RFP’s.

Former County Commissioner Cliff Thael, who pushed for the lobbyist registration ordinance currently on the books with Leon County, said the “cone of silence” is the whole point of lobbyist registration. “Without this language, the ordinance is nothing more than window dressing. An ordinance without that language is saying to lobbyists, ‘just file the paperwork and pay $25 – you can still talk to decision makers without a paper trail’. Lobbyists registration is supposed provide transparency, not condone secret conversations.”

Research by Tallahassee Reports indicates that other jurisdictions that register lobbyists restrict communications during the procurement process. For example, Palm Beach County just passed an ordinance that requires lobbyist registration and includes a “Cone of Silence” provision like the one included in the Leon County ordinance.

According to the Palm Beach County website, “The ‘Cone of Silence’ means a prohibition on any communication, except for written correspondence, regarding a particular Request for Proposal, Request for Qualification, bid, or any other competitive solicitation. The “Cone of Silence” is in effect from the time/date of the deadline for submission of the proposal, bid or other response to a competitive solicitation, until the time that the Board or County Department authorized to act on behalf of the Board, awards or approves a contract, rejects all bids or responses or otherwise takes action which ends the solicitation process.”

Other jurisdictions that include similar provisions are Tampa, Orlando, Boyton Beach, Coral Gable, and Miami-Dade.

The hearing on the lobbyist ordinance is Wednesday, February 23, 2011 at City Hall.

A quick perusal of the budget for the Office of the Mayor indicates there are four budgeted positions. However, that number includes the Mayor. So for 2010 the Mayor has 3 aides. In 2008 he had 3.5 aides.

The expenditures for the Office of the Mayor in 2008 was $689,000, in 2009 the estimated expenditures is $573,000, and the budgeted amount in 2010 is $592,000.

The other four commissioners each have one aide. The 2010 budget for the part-time commissioners’ offices is $161,000, except for City Commissioner seat #1, which is $12,000 less at $149,000. This seat is occupied by Mark Mustian.

Tallahassee Reports has learned that the elected City Commissioners are the only city employees who receive employer paid deferred compensation. The benefit afforded other appointed officials is consistent with the traditional understanding of deferred compensation. Depending on their age, the appointed officials are allowed to reap the tax benefits of deferring up to $21,999 of their own salary.

Bait and Switch

The fact that the City pays approximately $22,000 into the City Commissioners deferred compensation account is completely inconsistent with the language in the agenda item presented to the City Commissioners on April 13, 2005. The language is listed below:

Item 17: Voted 4-1 (Commissioner Mustian opposed) to approve pay adjustments necessary to bring the salaries of the City Manager, City Attorney, and City Treasurer-Clerk in line with the market, effective September 18, 2004 (Option 1), and to approve extension of the deferred compensation benefit currently provided to the City Manager and City Attorney to all members of the appointed/elected officials group, consistent with the City’s practice of providing a common set of benefits to all members of a compensation category, effective September 18, 2004 (Option 2) (as recommended by Human Resources).

Nowhere in the above language is it written that the elected City Commissioners will receive employer paid deferred compensation. In fact, it clearly states that the benefit will be what is currently provided to the City Manager and City Attorney – which is an employee paid benefit program.

City Charter Violation

Further research has raised the real possibility that the City Commissioners violated the City Charter by voting for an increase in their compensation. The City Charter states the following:

Each member of the city commission, except for the mayor, of the City of Tallahassee shall be paid an annual salary equal to one-half (1/2) of the annual salary set by state law for members of the Board of County Commissioners of Leon County, Florida.

The Mayor shall be paid an annual salary which shall be the same as that set by state law for the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners of Leon County, Florida.

Commissioner Mustian raised the point that the deferred compensation plan should be handled through a Charter amendment. However, the City Attorney, Jim English, told the Commissioners the Charter only restricted salary, not retirement benefits. The final vote was 4-1, with Mustian voting against.

The violation of the City Charter would seem to hinge on the difference between “employer paid deferred compensation” and the term used for appointed officials “deferred compensation.”

It would appear that the language clearly states that the elected Commissioners voted themselves an increase in employer paid compensation, contradicting the language in the Charter. In fact, the vote on the additional compensation was a benefit that no other city employee receives.

Financial Implications

Tallahassee Reports requested benefit information for the elected officials and completed an analysis which reveals the financial impact of the change in policy resulting from the implementation of Item 17.

For the period from 2003 to 2009, the cumulative benefits afforded the elected City Commissioners changed from the annual amount of $26,000 in 2003 to $126,000 in 2009. This an increase of approximately 384%.

Due to the vote on Item 17, during the period from 2004-2009, the citizens of Tallahassee have paid approximately $500,000-$600,000 more in benefits to the elected City Commissioners.

This is what we know:

1. The benefit was passed on April 13, 2005 by a 4-1 one vote.
2. Those who voted for the benefit were Marks, Gillum, Katz, and Lightsey. Mustian voted against the measure.
3. The language included in the item produced by city officials states the option was described as “approve extension of the deferred compensation benefit currently provided to city manager and city attorney to all elected and appointed officials.”
4. The vote made the action retroactive to September 2004.

Based on this information, Tallahassee Reports has submitted another data request seeking further clarification.

The salary of City Commissioners has been discussed in public for many years. Since the installation of the full-time Mayor position, the salary of the four part-time Commissioners was set at $36,000 per year and the Mayor receives $72,000 per year.

On top of that however, the data request indicates that each City Commissioner receives some additional perks. First, each City Commissioner receives an annually  “employer paid deferred compensation” payment. The payments are $16,499 for Commissioner Gillum, $21,999 for Commissioners Katz, Lightsey and Marks, and $22,219 for Commissioner Mustian. 

Tallahassee Reports has confirmed this payment is in addition to their salary and that the money can only be accessed after the Commissioners cease to be city employees.

Additional perks for each Commissioner include a $3,000 a year car allowance and an annual City Commission Benefit Allowance of $1,315.

The public record request also indicates that all City Commissioner positions are eligible for the general employee benefits which include flexbucks, totaling $1,968 annually, city contribution toward the annual cost of health insurance, $9,111 for Family or $7,534 for Two-Party, city contribution to a 401K plan – 5% of eligible earnings, and enrollment in the City’s pension plan.

If my math is correct, a part-time Commissioner receives close to $70,000 in annual benefits and the Mayor receives close $106,000.